Chapter 2: Heathen Pleas and General Principles

Heathen Pleas. General Principles.

We have done with his method, or manner of proceeding; our next view shall be of those general principles, and suppositions, which animate the paraenetical part of his work, and whereon it is solely founded. And here I would entreat him not to be offended, if in the entrance of this discourse, I make bold to mind him, that the most, if not all, of his pleas, have been long since insisted on by a very learned man, in a case not much unlike this which we have in hand; and were also long since answered by one as learned as he, or as any the world saw in the age wherein he lived, or it may be since, to this day, though he died now 1400 years ago. The person I intend is Celsus the Philosopher, who objected the very same things, upon the same general grounds, and ordered his objections in the same manner, against the Christians of old, as our Author does against the Protestants. And the answer of Origen to his eight books, will save any man the labor of answering this one, who knows how to make application of general rules and principles, to particular cases that may be regulated by them. Does our Author lay the cause of all the troubles, disorders, tumults, wars, wherewith the nations of Europe, have been for some season, and are still, in some places, infested, on the Protestants? So does Celsus charge all the evils, and commotions, plagues, and famines, wherewith mankind, in those days, was much wasted, upon the Christians. Does our Author charge the Protestants, that by their breaking off from Rome, with schisms and seditions they made way for others, on the same principles to break off seditiously from themselves? So did Celsus charge the Jews and Christians; telling the Jews, that by their seditious departure from the common worship and religion of the world, they made way for the Christians, a branch of themselves, to [illegible] them and their worship in like manner, and to set up for themselves: and following on his objection he applies it to the Christians, that they departing from the Jews, had broached principles for others to improve into a departure from them; which is the sum of most that is pleaded with any fair pretence, by our Author, against Protestants. Does he insist upon the divisions of the Protestants, and to make it evident that he speaks knowingly, boast, that he is acquainted with their persons, and has read the books of all sorts among them? So does Celsus deal with the Christians, reproaching them with their divisions, discords, mutual animosities, disputes, about God, and his worship; boasting, that he had debated the matter with them, and read their books of all sorts. Has he gathered a rhapsody of insignificant words, at least, as by him put together, out of the books of the Quakers, to reproach Protestants with their divisions? So did Celsus out of the books and writings of the Gnostics, Elionites, and Valentinians. Does he bring in Protestants pleading against the sects that are fallen from them, and these pleading against them, justifying the Protestants against them, but at length equally rejecting them all? So dealt Celsus with the Jews, Christians, and those that had fallen into singular opinions of their own. Does he manage the arguments of the Jews against Christ, to intimate that we cannot well by Scripture prove him to be so? The very same thing did Celsus, almost in the very words here used. Does he declaim openly about the obscurity of divine things, the nature of God, the works of creation, and providence, that we are not like to be delivered from it by books of poems, stories, plain letters? So does Celsus. Does he insist on the uncertainty of our knowing the Scripture to be from God; the difficulty of understanding it; its insufficiency to end men's differences about religion, and the worship of God? The same does Celsus at large, pleading the cause of Paganism, against Christianity. Does our Author plead, that where, and from whom men had their religion of old, there and with them they ought to abide, or to return to them? The same does Celsus, and that with pretences far more specious than those of our Author. Does he plead the quietness of all things in the world, the peace, the plenty, love, union, that were in the days before Protestants began to trouble all, as he supposes, about religion? The same course steers Celsus, in his contending against Christians in general. Is there intimated by our Author, a decay of devotion and reverence to religious things, temples, etc.? Celsus is large on this particular; the relinquishment of temples, discouragement of priests in their daily sacrifices, and heavenly contemplations, with other votaries; contempt of holy altars, images, and statues of worthies deceased, all heaven-bred ceremonies and comely worship by the means of Christians, he expatiates upon. Does he profess love and compassion to his countrymen, to draw them off from their folly, to have been the cause of his writing? So does Celsus. Does he deride and scoff at the first Reformers, with no less witty and biting sarcasms than those wherewith Aristophanes jeered Socrates on the stage? Celsus deals no otherwise with the first propagators of Christianity. Has he taken pains to palliate and put new glosses and interpretations upon those opinions and practices in his religion, which seem most obnoxious to exception? The same work did Celsus undertake, in reference to his Pagan theology and worship. And in sundry other things may the parallel be traced; so, that I may truly say, I cannot observe any thing of moment or importance of the nature of a general head or principle in this whole discourse made use of against Protestants, but that the same was used, as by others of old, so in particular, by Celsus, against the whole profession of Christianity. I will not be so injurious to our Author, as once to surmise, that he took either aim, or assistance, in his work from so bitter a professed enemy of Christ Jesus, and the religion by him revealed; yet he must give me leave to reckon this coincidence of argumentation between them, among other instances that may be given, where a similitude of cause has produced a great likeness, if not identity, in the reasonings of ingenious men. I could not satisfy myself without remarking this parallel; and perhaps, much more needs not to be added, to satisfy an unprejudiced reader in, or to, our whole business: for, if he be one that is unwilling to forego his Christianity, when he shall see, that the arguments that are used to draw him from his Protestancy, are the very same in general, that wise men of old made use of to subvert that which he is resolved to cleave to; he needs not much deliberation with himself what to do, or say, in this case, or be solicitous what he shall answer, when he is earnestly entreated to suffer himself to be deceived.

Of the pretences before-mentioned, some with their genuine inferences, are the main principles of this whole discourse. And seeing they bear the weight of all the pleas, reasonings, and persuasions that are drawn from them, which can have no further real strength and efficacy, than what is from them communicated to them, I shall present them in one view to the reader, that he lose not himself in the maze of words, wherewith our author endeavours to lead him up and down, still out of his way; and, that he may make a clear and distinct judgement of what is tendered to prevail upon him to desert that profession of religion wherein he is engaged. For, as I dare not attempt to deceive any man, though in matters incomparably of less moment than that treated about; so, I hope, no man can justly be offended, if in this, I warn him to take heed to himself, that he be not deceived. And they are these that follow; 1. That we in these nations first received the Christian Religion from Rome, by the mission and authority of the Pope. 2. That from where, and from whom, we first received our religion; there, and with them, we ought to abide, to them we must repair for guidance in all our concernments in it, and speedily return to their rule and conduct, if we have departed from them. 3. That the Roman profession of religion and practice in the worship of God, is every way the same as it was when we first received our religion from there; nor can ever otherwise be. 4. That all things as to religion were quiet and in peace, all men in union and at agreement among themselves, in the worship of God, according to the mind of Christ, before the relinquishment of the Roman See by our forefathers. 5. That the first reformers were the most of them sorry contemptible persons, whose errors were propagated by indirect means, and entertained for sinister ends. 6. That our departure from Rome has been the cause of all our evils, and particularly, of all those divisions which are at this day found among the Protestants, and which have been ever since the Reformation. 7. That we have no remedy of our evils, no means of ending our differences but by a return to the rule of the Roman See. 8. The Scripture upon sundry accounts is insufficient to settle us in the truth of religion, or to bring us to an agreement among ourselves; seeing it is, 1. Not to be known to be the Word of God, but by the testimony of the Roman Church: 2. Cannot be well translated into our vulgar language: 3. Is in itself obscure: And, 4. We have none to determine of the sense of it. 9. That the Pope is a good man, one that seeks nothing but our good, that never did us harm, and has the care and inspection of us committed to him by Christ. 10. That the devotion of the Catholics, far transcends that of Protestants, nor is their doctrine or worship liable to any just exception.

I suppose, our author will not deny these to be the principal nerves and sinews of his oration; nor complain, I have done him the least injury in this representation of them; or, that any thing of importance to his advantage by himself insisted on, is here omitted. He that runs and reads, if he observe any thing that lies before him, besides handsome words, and ingenious diversions, will consent, that here lies the substance of what is offered to him. I shall not need then to tire the reader, and myself, with transcriptions of those many words from the several parts of his discourse, wherein these principles are laid down and insinuated, or gilded over, as things on all hands granted. Besides, so far as they are interwoven with other reasonings, they will fall again under our consideration in the several places where they are used and improved. If all these principles upon examination be found good, true, firm, and stable; it is most meet and reasonable that our author should obtain his desire. And if, on the other side, they shall appear, some of them false, some impertinent, and the deductions from them sophistical, some of them destructive to Christian religion in general; none of them singly, nor all of them together able to bear the least part of that weight which is laid upon them, I suppose, he cannot take it ill, if we resolve to be contented with our present condition, until some better way of deliverance from it be proposed to us; which, to tell him the truth, for my part, I do not expect from his church or party. Let us then consider these principles apart, in the order wherein we have laid them down, which was the best I could think on upon the sudden, for the advantage of him who makes use them.

The first is an hinge, upon which many of those which follow, do, in a sort, depend; yes, upon the matter, all of them. Our primitive receiving Christian Religion from Rome, is that which influences all persuasions for a return there. Now if this must be admitted to be true, that we in these Nations first received the Christian Religion from Rome, by the mission and authority of the Pope; it either must be so, because the proposition carries its own evidence in its very terms, or because our author, and those consenting with him, have had it by revelation, or it has been testified to them by others, who knew it so to be. That the first it does not, is most certain; for, it is very possible, it might have been brought to us from some other place, from where it came to Rome; for, as I take it, it had not there its beginning. Nor do I suppose, they will plead special revelation, made either to themselves, or any others about this matter. I have read many of the revelations that are said to be made to sundry persons canonized by his Church for saints; but never met with any thing concerning the place from where England first received the Gospel. Nor have I yet heard revelation pleaded to this purpose by any of his co-partners in design. It remains then, that some body has told him so, or informed him of it, either by writing, or by word of mouth: Usually, in such cases, the first enquiry is, whether they be credible persons who have made the report. Now the pretended authors of this story, may, I suppose, be justly questioned, if on no other, yet on this account, that he who designs an advantage by their testimony, does not indeed himself believe what they say. For notwithstanding what he would fain have us believe of Christianity coming into Britain from Rome, he knows well enough, and tells us elsewhere himself, that it came directly by sea from Palestina into France, and was from there brought into England by Joseph of Arimathea. And what was that faith and worship which he brought along with him, we know full well; by that which was the faith and worship of his teachers, and associates, in the work of propagating the Gospel recorded in the Scripture. So that Christianity found a passage to Britain, without so much as once visiting Rome by the way. Yes, but 150 years after, Fugatius and Damianus came from Rome, and propagated the Gospel here; and, 400 years after them, Austin the Monk. Of these stories we shall speak particularly afterwards. But this quite spoils the whole market in hand; this is not a FIRST receiving of the Gospel, but a second and third at the best; and if that be considerable, then so ought the proposition to be laid: These Nations a second and third time, after the first from another place, received the Gospel from Rome; but this will not discharge that bill of following items, which is laid upon it. Whatever then there is considerable in the place or persons, from where, or whom, a nation, or people, receive the Gospel, as far as it concerns us, in these Kingdoms; it relates to Jerusalem and Jews, not Rome and Italians. Indeed, it had been very possible, that Christian Religion might have been propagated at first from Rome into Britany, considering, what, in these days, was the condition of the one place, and the other; yet things were so ordered, in the providence of the Lord, that it fell out otherwise; and the Gospel was preached here in England, probably, before ever Saint Paul came to Rome, or Saint Peter either, if ever he came there. But yet, to prevent wrangling about Austin and the Saxons, let us suppose that Christian Religion was first planted in these Nations by persons coming from Rome, if you will, men sent by the Pope, before he was born, for that purpose: What then will follow? Was it the Pope's religion they taught and preached? Did the Pope first find it out, and declare it? Did they baptize men into the name of the Pope? Or, declare that the Pope was crucified for them? You know whose arguings these are, to prove men should not lay weight upon, or contend about, the first ministerial revealers of the Gospel; but rest all in him who is the Author of it, Christ Jesus. Did any come here and preach in the Pope's name, declare a religion of his revealing, or resting in him as the fountain and source of the whole business they had to do? If you say so, you say something which is near to your purpose, but certainly very wide from the truth. But because it is most certain, that God had not promised, originally, to send the rod of Christ's strength out of Rome, I shall take leave to ask, From where the Gospel came there? Or, to use the words made use of once and again by our author, Came the Gospel from them, or came it to them only? I suppose they will not say so, because they speak to men that have seen the Bible. If it came to them from others, what privilege had they at Rome, that they should not have the same respect for them, from whom the Gospel came to them, as they claim from those to whom they plead, that it came from themselves? The case is clear; Saint Peter coming to Rome, brought his chair along with him, after which time, that was made the head, spring, and fountain of all religion, and no such thing could befall those places, where the planters of the Gospel had no chairs to settle. I think I have read this story in an hundred writers, but they were all men of yesterday, in comparison; who, whatever they pretend, know no more of this business, than myself. Saint Peter speaks not one word of it, in his writings; nor yet Saint Luke; nor Saint Paul, nor any one who by divine inspiration, committed any thing to remembrance of the state of the Church, after the Resurrection of Christ. And not only are they utterly silent of this matter; but so also are Clemens, and Ignatius, and Justin Martyr, and Tertullian, with the rest of knowing men in those days. I confess, in after-ages, when some began to think it meet, that the chiefest Apostle should go to the then chiefest city in the world, divers began to speak of his going there, and of his martyrdom there, though they agree not in their tales about it. But be it so; as for my part, I will not contend in a matter so dark, uncertain, of no moment in religion; this I know, that being the Apostle of the Circumcision, if he did go to Rome, it was to convert the Jews that were there, and not to found that Gentile-Church, which in a short space got the start of the other. But yet, neither do these writers talk of bringing his chair there; much less is there in them one dust of that rope of sand, which men of latter days have endeavoured to twist with inconsistent consequences, and groundless presumptions to draw out from there the Pope's prerogative. The case then is absolutely the same as to those in respect of the Romans, who received the Gospel from them, or by their means; and of the Romans themselves, in respect of those from whom they received it. If they would win worship to themselves from others, by pretending that the Gospel came forth from them to them; let them teach them by the example of their devotion towards those from whom they received it. I suppose, they will not plead, that they are not now in rerum naturâ; knowing what will ensue to their disadvantage on that plea. For, if that Church is utterly failed and gone from where they first received the Gospel, that which others received it from, may possibly be not in a much better condition. But I find myself, before I was aware, fallen into the borders of the second principle, or presumption mentioned. I shall therefore shut up my consideration of this first pretence, with this only; that neither is it true, that these Nations first received Christianity from Rome, much less by any mission of the Pope; nor, if they had done so, in the exercise of a ministerial work and authority, would this make any thing to what is pretended from it; nor will it ever be of any use to the present Romanists, unless they can prove, that the Pope was the first Author of Christian Religion, which, as yet, they have not attempted to do, and from there it is evident, what is to be thought of the second principle before-mentioned; Namely,

II. That from where, and from whom, we first receive our Religion, there, and with them, we must abide therein, to them we must repair for Guidance, and return to their Rule and Conduct, if we have departed from them.

I have shewed already, that there is no privity of interests between us and the Romanists in this matter. But suppose, we had been originally instructed in Christianity by men sent from Rome to that purpose, (for unless, we suppose this, for the present, our talk is at an end) I see not, as yet, the verity of this Proposition. With the Truth, (where-ever it be, or with whomever) it is most certainly our duty to abide. And if those, from whom we first received our Christianity ministerially, abide in the Truth, we must abide with them; not because they, or their Predecessors, were the instruments of our conversion; but, because they abide in the Truth. Setting aside this consideration of Truth, which is the bond of all union, and that which fixeth the center, and limits the bounds of it, one people's, or one church's abiding with another in any profession of religion, is a thing merely indifferent. When we have received the Truth from any, the formal reason of our continuance with them in that union, which our reception of the Truth from them gives to us, is their abiding in the Truth, and no other. Suppose some persons, or some church or churches, do propagate Christianity to another; and in progress of time, themselves fall off from some of those Truths, which they, or their Predecessors, had formerly delivered to these instructed by them? If our Author shall deny, that such a supposition can well be made, because it never did, nor can fall out, I shall remove his exception, by scores of instances out of antiquity, needless in so evident a matter to be here mentioned. What in this case would be their duty who received the Gospel from them? Must they abide with them, follow after them, and embrace the errors they are fallen into, because they first received the Gospel from them? I trow not; it will be found their duty to abide in the Truth, and not to pin their faith upon the sleeves of them, by whom ministerially it was at first communicated to them. But this case, you will say, concerns not the Roman Church, and Protestants; for, as these abide not in the Truth, so they never did, nor can, depart from it. Well then! that we may not displease them at present, let us put the case so, as I presume, they will own it. Suppose, men, or a church, intrusted by Christ authoritatively to preach the Gospel, do propagate the faith to others according to their duties; these, being converted by their means, do afterwards, through the craft and subtilty of seducers, fall in sundry things from the Truths they were instructed in, and wherein their instructors do constantly abide; yes, say our adversaries, this is the true case indeed. I ask then, in this case, What is, and ought to be, the formal motive to prevail with these persons to return to their former condition from where they were fallen? Either this, that they are departed from the Truth, which they cannot do, without peril to their souls, and whereunto, if they return not, they must perish; or this, that it is their duty to return to them from whom they first received the doctrine of Christianity, because they so received it from them? Saint Paul, who surely, had as much authority in these matters, as either the Pope, or Church of Rome, can with any modesty lay claim to, had to deal with very many in this case. Particularly, after he had preached the Gospel to the Galatians, and converted them to the faith of Christ, there came in some false teachers and seducers among them, which drew them off from the Truth wherein they had been instructed, in divers important and some fundamental points of it. What course does the Apostle proceed in, towards them? Does he plead with them about their falling away from him that first converted them? or falling away from the Truth whereunto they were converted? If any one will take the pains to turn to any chapter in that Epistle, he may be satisfied as to this enquiry; it is their falling away from the Gospel, from the Truth they had received, from the doctrine, in particular, of faith and justification by the blood of Christ, that alone he blamed them for. Yes, and makes doctrines so far the measure and rule of judging and censuring of persons, whether they preach the Word first or last, that he pronounces a redoubled anathema, against any creature in heaven or earth, upon a supposition of their teaching any thing contrary to it (chapter 1:8). He pleads not, we preached first to you, by us you were converted, and therefore with us you must abide, from whom the faith came forth to you; but says, If we, or an Angel from Heaven, preach any other Gospel, let him be accursed. This was the way he chose to insist on; and it may not be judged unreasonable, if we esteem it better than that of theirs, who by false pretending to have been our old, would very fain be our new masters. But the mentioned maxim lets us know, that the persons, and churches, that have received the faith from the Roman Church, or by means thereof, should abide under the rule and conduct of it, and, if departed from it, return speedily to due obedience. I think, it will be easily granted, that, if we ought to abide under its rule and conduct, whither ever it shall please to guide us, we ought quickly to return to our duty and task, if we should make any lapsement from it. It is not meet, that those that are born mules to bondage, should ever alter their condition. Only we must profess, we know not the springs of that unhappy fate, which should render us such animals. To what is here pretended, I only ask, Whether this right of presidency and rule in the Roman Church, over all persons and churches pretended of old to be converted by her means, do belong to her by virtue of any general right that those who convert others, should for ever have the conduct of those converted by them, or by virtue of some special privilege granted to the Church of Rome above others? If the first, or general title, be insisted on, it is most certain, that a very small pittance of jurisdiction, will be left to the Roman See, in comparison of that vast empire, which now it has, or layeth claim to, knowing no bounds, but those of the universal nature of things here below. For all men know, that the Gospel was preached in very many places of the world, before its sound reached to Rome, and in most parts of the then-known world, before any such planting of a church at Rome, as might be the foundation of any authoritative mission of any from there for the conversion of others; and, after that a church was planted in that city, for any thing that may be made to appear by story, it was as to the first edition of Christianity in the Roman Empire, as little serviceable in the propagation of the Gospel, as any other church of name in the world; so that, if such principles should be pleaded, as of general equity, there could be nothing fixed on more destructive to the Romanist's pretences. If they have any special privilege to found this claim upon, they may do well to produce it. In the Scripture, though there be of many believers, yet there is no mention made, of any church at Rome, but only of that little assembly that used to meet at Aquila's house (Romans 16:5). Of any such privilege annexed to that meeting, we find nothing; the first general Council, confirming power and rule over others in some churches, acknowledge, indeed, more to have been practised in the Roman Church than I know how they could prove to be due to it. But yet that very unwarrantable grant, is utterly destructive to the present claim and condition of the Pope and Church of Rome. The wings, now pretended to be like those of the sun, extending themselves, at once, to the ends of the earth, were then accounted no longer, than to be able to cover the poor believers in the city and suburbs of it, and some few adjacent towns and villages. It would be a long story, to tell the progress of this claim in after-times; it is sufficiently done in some of those books, of which our Author says, there are enough to fill the Tower of London; where, I presume, or into the fire, he could be contented they should be for ever disposed of, and therefore we may dismiss this principle also.

That which is the main pillar, bearing the weight of all this fine fabric, is the principle we mentioned in the third place, namely, that the Roman profession of religion, and practice in the worship of God, are every way the same, as when we first received the Gospel from the Pope, nor can they ever otherwise be.

This is taken for granted, by our Author, throughout his Discourse. And the truth is, that, if a man has a mind to suppose, and make use of things that are in question between him and his Adversary, it were a folly not to presume on so much as should assuredly serve his turn. To what purpose is it to mince the matter, and give opportunity to new cavils, and exceptions, by baby-mouthed petitions of some small things that there is a strife about, when a man may as honestly, all at once, suppose the whole truth of his side, and proceed without fear of disturbance. And so wisely deals our Author in this business. That which ought to have been his whole work, he takes for granted, to be already done. If this be granted him, he is safe; deny it, and all his fine oration dwindles into a little sapless sophistry. But he must get the great number of books that he seems to be troubled with, out of the world, and the Scripture to boot, before he will persuade considerate and unprejudiced men, that there is a word of truth in this supposition. That we in these nations received not the Gospel originally from the Pope, (which pag. 354. our Author tells us is his, purely his, whereas we thought before, it had been Christ's) has been declared, and shall, if need be, be further evinced. But let us suppose once again, that we did so; yet we constantly deny the Church of Rome, to be the same in doctrine, worship, and discipline, that she was when it is pretended, that by her means we were instituted in the knowledge of truth. Our Author knows full well, what a facile work I have now lying in view; what an easy thing it were to go over most of the opinions of the present Church of Rome, and most, if not all their practices in worship, and to manifest their vast distance from the doctrine, practice, and principles of that Church of old. But, though this were really a more serious work, and more useful, and much more accommodated to the nature of the whole difference between us, more easy and pleasant to myself than the pursuit of this odd rambling chase that by following of him I am engaged in; yet, lest he should pretend, that this would be a division into common places, such as he has purposely avoided, (and that not unwisely, that he might have advantage all along to take for granted, that which he knew to be principally in question between us) I shall dismiss that business, and only attend to that great proof of this assertion, which himself thought meet to shut up his book withal, as that which was fit to pin down the basket, and to keep close and safe, all the long-billed birds, that he hoped to limetwig by his preceding rhetoric and sophistry. It is in pag. 362, 363. Though I hope I am not contentious, nor have any other hatred against Popery than what becomes an honest man to have against that which he is persuaded to be so ill as Popery must needs be, if it be ill at all; yet upon his request, I have seriously pondered his queries (a captious way of disputing), and falling now in my way, do return him this answer to them.

1. The supposition on which all his ensuing queries are founded, must be rightly stated, its terms freed from ambiguity, and the whole from equivocation: which a word or two, to, first, the subject; and then, secondly, the predicate of the proposition, or what is attributed to the subject spoken of; and thirdly, the proof of the whole; will suffice to do. The thesis laid down is this, The Church of Rome, was once a most pure, excellent, flourishing and mother Church: this, good Saint Paul amply testifies in his Epistle to them, and is acknowledged by Protestants. The subject is the Church of Rome. And this may be taken either for the Church that was founded in Rome, in the Apostles' days, consisting of believers, with those that had their rule and oversight in the Lord; or it may be taken for the Church of Rome, in the sense of latter ages, consisting of the Pope its head, and Cardinals, principal members, with all the jurisdiction dependent on them, and way of worship established by them, and their authority; or, that collection of men throughout the world, that yield obedience to the Pope in their several places and subordinations according to the rules by him and his authority given to them. That which is attributed to this Church, is, that it was once a most pure, excellent, flourishing, and mother-Church; all, it seems, in the superlative degree. I will not contend about the purity, excellency, or flourishing of that Church; the boasting of the superlativeness of that purity and excellency, seems to be borrowed from that of (Revelation 3:15). But we shall not exagitate that, in that Church, which it would never have affirmed of itself, because it is fallen out to be the interest of some men in these latter days to talk at such a rate, as primitive humility was an utter stranger to. I somewhat guess at what he means by a mother-Church; for, though the Scripture knows no such thing, but only appropriates that title to Jerusalem that was above, which is said to be the mother of us all (Galatians 4:26), which I suppose is not Rome, (and I also think that no man can have two mothers,) nor did purer antiquity ever dream of any such mother, yet the vogue of latter days, has made this expression not only passable in the world, but sacred and unquestionable; I shall only say, that in the sense wherein it is by some understood, the old Roman Church could lay no more claim to it, than most other Churches in the world, and not so good as some others could.

The proof of this assertion lies first on the testimony of Saint Paul, and then on the acknowledgement of Protestants. First, good Saint Paul — he says — amply testifies this in his Epistle to the Romans. This, what I pray? That the then Roman Church was a mother church: not a word in all the Epistle of any such matter. No, as I observed before, though he greatly commends the faith and holiness of many believers, Jews and Gentiles, that were at Rome; yet he makes mention of no church there, but only of a little assembly that used to meet at Aquila's house; nor does Saint Paul give any testimony at all to the Roman Church in the latter sense of that expression. Is there any thing in his Epistle of the Pope, Cardinals, Patriarchs, &c.? Any thing of their power, and rule over other churches, or Christians, not living at Rome? Is there any one word in that Epistle about that which the Papists make the principal ingredient in their definition of the Church, namely, subjection to the Pope? What then is the 'This' that good Saint Paul so amply testifies to, in his Epistle to the Romans? Why this and this only: that, when he wrote this Epistle to Rome, there were then living in that city, sundry good and holy men, believing in Christ Jesus, according to the Gospel, and making profession of the faith that is in him; but, that these men should live there to the end of the world, he says not, nor do we find that they do. The acknowledgement of Protestants is next, to as little purpose, insisted on. They acknowledge a pure and flourishing church to have been once at Rome, as they maintain there was at Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Smyrna, Laodicea, Alexandria, Babylon, &c. That in all these places such churches do still continue, they deny, and particularly at Rome. For that church which then was, they deny it to be the same that now is; at least, any more than Argo was the same ship as when first built, after there was not one plank or pin of its first structure remaining. That the Church of Rome, in the latter sense, was ever a pure flourishing church, never any Protestant acknowledged; the most of them deny it ever to have been in that sense any church at all; and those that grant it to retain the essential constituting principles of a church, yet aver that as it is, so it ever was, since it had a being, very far from a pure and flourishing church. For ought then that I can perceive, we are not at all concerned in the following queries; the supposition they are all built upon being partly sophistical, and partly false. But yet, because he does so earnestly request us to ponder them, we shall not give him cause to complain of us, in this particular at least (as he does in general of all Protestants) — that we deal uncivilly; and therefore shall pass through them; after which, if he pleases, he may deliver them to his friend of whom they were borrowed.

1. Says he, this church could not cease to be such, but she must fall either by apostacy, heresy, or schism: but who told him so? Might she not cease to be, and so consequently to be such? Might not the persons of whom it consisted have been destroyed by an earthquake, as it happened to Laodicea? Or by the sword, as it befell the church of the Jews, or twenty other ways? Besides, might she not fall by idolatry, or false worship, or by profaneness, or licentiousness of conversation, contrary to the whole rule of Christ? That then he may know what is to be removed by his queries, if he should speak any thing to the purpose, he may do well to take notice that this is the dogma of Protestants concerning the Church of Rome: that the church planted there pure, did by degrees in a long tract of time, fall by apostacy, idolatry, heresy, schism, and profaneness of life, into that condition wherein now it is. But, says he,

1. Not by apostacy; for that is not only a renouncing of the faith of Christ, but the very name and title of Christianity; and no man will say that the Church of Rome had ever such a fall, or fell thus. I tell you truly, Sir, your church is very much beholding to men, if they do not sometimes say very hard things of her fall. Had it been an ordinary slip, or so, it might have been passed over; but this falling into the mire, and wallowing in it for so many ages, as she has done, is in truth a very naughty business. For my part, I am resolved to deal as gently with her as possible; and therefore say, that there is a total apostasy from Christianity, which she fell not into, or by; and there is a partial apostasy in Christianity, from some of the principles of it, such as Saint Paul charged on the Galatians; and the old Fathers on very many that yet retained the name and title of Christians, and this, we say plainly, that she fell by; she fell by apostasy from many of the most material principles of the Gospel, both as to faith, life, and worship. And there being no reply made upon this instance, were it not upon the account of pure civility, we need not proceed any further with his queries, the business of them being come to an end.

But, upon his entreaty, we will follow him a little further: Supposing, that he has dispatched the business of Apostasy, he comes to Heresy, and tells us; That it is an adhesion to some private or singular opinion, or error, in faith; contrary to the general approved doctrine of the Church. That which ought to be subsumed, is, that the Church of Rome did never adhere to any singular opinion or error in faith, contrary to the general approved doctrine of the Church; but our Author, to cover his business, changes the terms in his proceeding, into the Christian World. To clear this to us a little, I desire to know of him, What Church he means, when he speaks of the approved doctrine of the Church? I am sure, he will say, the Roman-Catholic Church; and, if I ask him, What age it is, of that Church which he intends, he will also say, That Age which is present, when the opinions mentioned, are asserted, contrary to the approved doctrine. We have then obtained his meaning, namely, The Roman-Church did never at any time adhere to any opinion, but what the Roman-Church at that time adhered to; or taught, or approved, no other doctrine, but what it taught and approved. Now, I verily believe this to be true, and he must be somewhat besides uncivil, that shall deny it. But from hence to infer, That the Roman-Church, never fell from her first purity by Heresy; that is a thing I cannot yet discern, how it may be made good. This conclusion arises out of that pitiful definition of Heresy he gives us, coined merely to serve the Roman-Interest. The rule of judging Heresy is made the approved doctrine of the Church; I would know of what Church: of this or that particular Church, or of the Catholic? Doubtless the Catholic must be pretended. I ask, Of this or that Age, or of the first? Of the first certainly. I desire then to know, how we may come to discern infallibly what was the approved doctrine of the Catholic-Church of Old, but only by the Scriptures; which we know it unanimously embraced as given to it by Christ, for its rule of faith and worship. If we should then grant, that the approved doctrine of the Church, were that which a departure from, as such, gives formality to Heresy; yet there is no way to know that doctrine but by the Scripture. But yet neither can or ought this to be granted. The formal reason of Heresy, in the usual acceptation of the word, arises from its deviation from the Scripture as such, which is the rule of the Church's doctrine, and of the opinions that are contrary to it. Nor yet is every private or singular opinion contrary to the Scripture, or the doctrine of the Church, presently a Heresy. That is not the sense of the word, either in Scripture or Antiquity. So that the foundation of the queries about Heresy is not one jot better laid, than that was about Apostasy, which went before. This is that which I have heard Protestants say; namely, That the Church of Rome does adhere to very many opinions and errors in faith, contrary to the main principles of Christian religion delivered in the Scripture, and so, consequently, the doctrine approved by the Catholic Church; and, if this be to fall by Heresy, I add, that she is thus fallen also from what she was. But then he asks 1. By what general Council was she ever condemned? 2. Which of the Fathers ever wrote against her? 3. By what Authority was she otherwise reproved? But this is all one, as if a thief arraigned for stealing before a Judge, and the goods that he had stolen found upon him, should plead for himself and say; If ever I stole any thing, then by what lawful Judge was I ever condemned? What Officer of the State did ever, formerly, apprehend me? By what Authority were Writs issued out against me? Were it not easy for the Judge to reply, and tell him; Friend, these allegations may prove, that you were never before condemned, but they prove not at all, that you never stole; which is a matter of fact that you are now upon your trial for. No more will it at all follow, that the Church of Rome did never offend, because she is not condemned. These things may be necessary that she may be said to be legally convicted, but not at all to prove, that she is really guilty. Besides, the truth is, that many of her doctrines and practices are condemned by general Councils, and most of them by the most learned Fathers, and all of them by the Authority of the Scripture. And while her doctrine and worship is so condemned, I see not well how she can escape; so that this second way also she is fallen.

3. To Apostasy and Heresy she has also added the guilt of Schism in a high degree. For, Schisms within herself, and her great Schism from all the Christian world besides herself, are things well known to all that know her. Her intestine Schisms were the shame of Christendom, her Schisms in respect of others the ruin of it. And briefly, to answer the triple query we are so earnestly invited to the consideration of, I shall need to instance only in that one particular of making, subjection to the Pope in all things, the Tessera & rule of all Church-communion, whereby she has left the company of all the Churches of Christ in the world besides herself, is gone forth and departed from all Apostolical Churches; even that of Old Rome itself; and the true Church, which she has forsaken, abides and is preserved in all the societies of Christians throughout the Earth, who attending to the Scripture for their only rule and guide, do believe what is therein revealed, and worship God accordingly. So that notwithstanding any thing here offered to the contrary, it is very possible, that the present Church of Rome, may be fallen from her primitive condition by Apostasy, Heresy, and Schism, which indeed she is; and worst of all, by Idolatry, which our Author thought meet to pass over in silence.

IV. It is frequently pleaded by our Author (nor is there any thing which he more triumphs in) That all things as to religion were quiet and in peace; all men in union and agreement among themselves in the worship of God, before the departure made by our fore-Fathers from the Roman See. No man that has once cast an eye upon the defensatives written by the ancient Christians, but knows how this very consideration was managed and improved against them by their Pagan impugners. That Christians by their introduction of a new way of worshipping God, which their fore-Fathers knew not, had disturbed the peace of humane society, divided the world into seditious factions, broken all the ancient bonds of peace and amity, dissolved the whole harmony of mankind's agreement among themselves, was the subject of the declamations of their adversaries. This complaint, their books, their schools, the courts and judicatories were filled with; against all which clamors, and violences that were stirred up against them by their means, those blessed souls armed themselves with patience, and the testimony of their consciences, that they neither did, nor practised any thing that in its own nature had a tendency to the least of those evils, which they and their way of worshipping God, was reproached with. As they had the opportunity indeed, they let their adversaries know, that that peace and union they boasted of, in their religion, before the entrance of Christianity, was but a conspiracy against God, a consent in error and falsehood, and brought upon the world by the craft of Satan, maintained through the effectual influence of innumerable prejudices upon the innate blindness and darkness of their hearts. That upon the appearance of light, and publishing of the truth, divisions, animosities, troubles, and distractions did arise; they declared to have been no proper or necessary effect of the work, but a consequent, occasional, and accidental, arising from the lusts of men, who loved darkness more than light, because their works were evil, which that it would ensue, their blessed Master had long before foretold them, and forewarned them.

Though this be enough, yet it is not all, that may be replied to this old pretence, and plea, as managed to the purpose of our adversaries. It is part of the motive, which the great historian makes Galgacus, the valiant Briton, use to his countrymen, to cast off the Roman yoke; Solitudinem ubi fecerunt, pacem vocant. It was their way, when they had by force and cruelty laid all waste before them, to call the remaining solitude and desolation, by the goodly name of peace; neither considered they, whether the residue of men had either satisfaction in their minds, or advantage by their rule. Nor was the peace of the Roman Church any other before the Reformation. What waste they had, by sword and burnings, made in several parts of Europe, in almost all the chiefest nations of it, of mankind; what desolation they had brought by violence upon those who opposed their rule, or questioned their doctrine; the blood of innumerable poor men, many of them learned, all pious and zealous, whom they called Waldenses, Albigenses, Lollards, Wicklevites, Hussites, Caliptives, Subutraquians, Picards, or what else they pleased, (being indeed the faithful witnesses of the Lord Christ and his truths) will at the last day reveal. Besides, the event declared, how remote the minds of millions were from an acquiescency in that conspiracy in the Papal sovereignty, which was grown to be the bond of communion among those who called themselves the Church, or an approbation of that doctrine and worship which they made profession of. For no sooner was a door of liberty and light opened to them, but whole nations were at strife who should first enter in at it; which undoubtedly, all the nations of Europe had long since done, had not the holy wise God in his good providence suffered in some of them a sword of power and violence to interpose itself against their entrance. For, whatever may be pretended of peace and agreement to this day, take away force and violence, prisons and fagots, and in one day, the whole compages of that stupendous fabric of the Papacy, will be dissolved; and the life, which will be maintained in it, springing only from secular advantages and inveterate prejudices, would together with them decay, and disappear. Neither can any thing, but a confidence of the ignorance of men in all things that are past, yes, in what was done almost by their own grandsires, give countenance to a man in his own silent thoughts, for such insinuations of quietness in the world before the Reformation. The wars, seditions, rebellions, and tumults, (to omit private practises) that were either raised, occasioned, and countenanced by the Pope's absolving subjects from their allegiance, kings and states from their oaths given mutually for the securing of peace between them, all in the pursuit of their own worldly interests, do fill up a good part of the stories of some ages before the Reformation. Whatever then is pretended, things were not so peaceable and quiet in those days, as they are now represented to men that mind only things that are present; nor was their agreement their virtue, but their sin and misery; being centred in blindness and ignorance, and cemented with blood.

That the first Reformers were most of them sorry contemptible persons, whose errors were propagated by indirect means, and entertained for sinister ends; is in several places of this book alleged, and consequences pretended from there to ensue, urged and improved. But the truth is, the more contemptible the persons were that begun the work, the greater glory and lustre is reflected on the work itself; which points out to an higher cause than any appeared outwardly for the carrying of it on. It is no small part of the Gospel's glory, that being promulgated by persons whom the world looked on with the greatest contempt and scorn imaginable, as men utterly destitute of whatever was by them esteemed noble or honorable; it prevailed notwithstanding in the minds of men, to eradicate the inveterate prejudices received by tradition from their fathers; to overthrow the ancient and outward glorious worship of the nations; and to bring them into subjection to Christ. Neither can any thing be written with more contempt and scorn, nor with greater under-valuation of the abilities, or outward condition of the first Reformers, than was spoken and written by the greatest and wisest and learnedst of men of old, concerning the preachers and planters of Christianity. Should I but repeat the biting sarcasms, contemptuous reproaches and scorns wherewith, with plausible pretences, the Apostles and those that followed them in their work of preaching the Gospel were entertained by Celsus, Lucian, Porphyry, Julian, Hierocles, with many more, men learned and wise; I could easily manifest how short our new masters come of them in facetious wit, beguiling eloquence, and fair pretences, when they seek by stories, jestings, calumnies, and false reports, to expose the first Reformers to the contempt and scorn of men, who know nothing of them but their names, and those as covered with all the dirt they can possibly cast upon them. But I intend not to tempt the atheistical wits of any, to an approbation of their sin, by that compliance which the vain fancies of such men do usually afford them, in the contemplation of the wit and ingenuity, as they esteem it, of plausible calumnies. The Scripture may be heard; that abundantly testifies, that the character given of the first Reformers as men, poor, unlearned, seeking to advantage themselves by the troubling of others, better, greater and wiser than they, in their religion, was received of the Apostles, Evangelists, and other Christians in the first budding of Christianity. But the truth is, all these are but vain pretences; those knew of old, and these do now, that the persons whom they vilify and scorn, were eminently fitted of God for the work that they were called to.

The receiving of their opinions for sinister ends, reflects principally on this Kingdom of England; and must do so, while the surmises of a few interested friars shall be believed by Englishmen, before the solemn protestation of so renowned a king, as he was, who first cashiered the Pope's authority in this nation; for, what he being alive avowed on his royal word, and vowed as in the sight of the Almighty God, was an effect of light and conscience in him, they will needs have to be a consequent of his lust and levity. And what honor it is to the royal government of this nation, to have those who swayed the scepter of it, but a few years ago, publicly traduced and exposed to obloquy by the libelous pens of obscure and unknown persons, wise men may be easily able to judge. This I am sure, there is little probability that they should have any real regard or reverence for the present rulers, farther than they find, or hope that they shall have their countenance and assistance for the furtherance of their private interest, who so revile their predecessors, for acting contrary to it; and this loyalty the King's Majesty may secure himself of, from the most seditious fanatic in the nation; so highly is he beholding to these men, for their duty and obedience.

VI. That our departure from Rome has been the cause of all our evils, and particularly of all those divisions, which are at this day found among Protestants, and which have been since the Reformation, is a supposition, that not only insinuates itself into the hidden sophistry of our author's discourse, but is also every where spread over the face of it; with as little truth, or advantage to his purpose, as those that went before. So the Pagans judged the primitive Christians, so also did the Jews, and do to this day. Here is no new task lies before us. The answers given of old to them, and yet continued to be given, will suffice to these men also. The truth is, our divisions are not the effect of our leaving Rome; but of our being there. In the apostasy of that church came upon men all that darkness, and all those prejudices, which cause many needless divisions among them. And is it any wonder, that men, partly led, partly driven out of the right way, and turned a clean contrary course for sundry generations, should upon liberty obtained to return to their old paths, somewhat vary in their choice of particular tracts, though they all agree to travel towards the same place, and in general, steer their course accordingly. Besides, let men say what they please, the differences among the Protestants that are purely religious, are no other but such as ever were, and, take away external force, ever will be among the best of men, while they know but in part; however they may not be managed with that prudence and moderation, which it is our duty to use in and about them. Were not the consequences of our differences, which arise merely from our folly and sin, of more important consideration than our differences themselves, I should very little value the one or the other; knowing that none of them in their own nature are such, as to impeach either our present tranquillity, or future happiness. So that, neither are the divisions that are among Protestants in themselves of any importance, nor were they occasioned by their departure from Rome. That all men are not made perfectly wise, nor do know all things perfectly, is partly a consequent of their condition in this world, partly a fruit of their own lusts, and corruptions; neither to be imputed to the religion which they profess, nor to the rule that they pretend to follow. Had all those who could not continue in the profession of the errors, and practice of the worship of the Church of Rome, and were therefore driven out by violence and blood from among them, been as happy in attending to the rule that they chose for their guidance and direction, as they were wise in choosing it; they had had no other differences among them than what necessarily follow their concreated different constitutions, complexions, and capacities. It is not the work of religion in this world wholly to dispel men's darkness; nor absolutely to eradicate their distempers; somewhat must be left for Heaven: and that more is than ought to be, is the fault of men, and not of the truth they profess. That religion which reveals a sufficient rule to guide men into peace, union, and all necessary truth, is not to be blamed, if men in all things follow not its direction. Nor are the differences among the Protestants, greater than those among the members of the Roman Church. The imputation of the errors and miscarriages of the Socinians and Quakers to Protestancy, is of no other nature than that of Pagans of old, charging the follies, and abominations of the Gnostics and Valentinians on Christianity. For those that are truly called Protestants, whose concurrence in the same confession of faith, as to all material points, is sufficient to cast them under one denomination, what evils I wonder are to be found among them as to divisions, that are not conspicuous to all in the Papacy? The princes and nations of their profession are, or have all been engaged in mortal feuds and wars one against another, all the world over. Their divines write, as stiffly one against another, as men can do: mutual accusations of pernicious doctrines and practices abound among them. I am not able to guess what place will hold the books written about their intestine differences, as our author does concerning those that are written by Protestants against the Papacy; but this I know, all public libraries and private studies of learned men abound with them. Their invectives, apologies, accusations, charges, underminings of one another, are part of the weekly news of these days. Our author knows well enough what I mean. Nor are these the ways and practices of private men, but of whole societies and fraternities; which, if they are in truth, such as they are by each other represented to be; it would be the interest of mankind, to seek the suppression and extermination of some of them. I profess, I wonder, while their own house is so visibly on fire, that they can find leisure to scold at others for not quenching theirs. Nor is the remaining agreement that they boast of, one jot better, than either their own dissentions, or ours. It is not union or agreement among men absolutely, that is to be valued. Simeon and Levi never did worse, than when they agreed best; and were brethren in evil. The grounds and reasons of men's agreement, with the nature of the things wherein they are agreed, are that which make it either commendable or desirable. Should I lay forth what these are in the Papacy, our author I fear would count me unmannerly, and uncivil; but yet because the matter does so require, I must needs tell him, that many wise men do affirm, that ignorance, inveterate prejudice, secular advantages, and external force, are the chief constitutive principles of that union and agreement which remains among them. But whatever their evils be, it is pretended, that they have a remedy at hand for them all: But,

VII. That we have no remedy of our evils, no means of ending our differences, but by a returnal to the Roman See. Whether there be any way to end differences among our selves, as far, and as soon, as there is any need they should be ended, will be afterwards enquired into. This I know, that a returnal to Rome will not do it; unless when we come there, we can learn to behave our selves better, than those do, who are there already; and there is indeed no party of men in the world, but can give us as good security of ending our differences as the Romanists. If we would all turn Quakers, it would end our disputes; and that is all that is provided us, if we will turn Papists. This is the language of every party; and for my part I think they believe what they say; Come over to us, and we shall all agree. Only the Romanists are likely to obtain least credit as to this matter among wise men, because they cannot agree among themselves; and are as unfit to umpire the differences of other men, as Philip of Macedon was to quiet Greece, while he, his wife and children were together by the ears at home.

But why have not Protestants a remedy for their evils, a means of ending and making up their differences? They have the Word that's left them for that purpose, which the Apostles commended to them, and which the Primitive Church made use of, and no other. That this will not serve to prevent, or remove any hurtful differences from among us, it is not its fault, but ours. And could we prevail with Roman-Catholics to blame and reprove us, and not to blame the religion we profess, we should count our selves beholding to them; and they would have the less to answer for, another day. But as things are stated, it is fallen out very unhappily for them; that finding they cannot hurt us, but that their weapons must pass through the Scriptures, that is it which they are forced to direct their blows against. The Scripture is dark, obscure, insufficient, cannot be known to be the word of God, nor understood, is the main of their plea, when they intend to deal with Protestants. I am persuaded, that they are troubled, when they are put upon this work: it cannot be acceptable to the minds of men to be engaged in such undervaluations of the word of God. Sure, they can have no other mind in this work, than a man would have in pulling down his house, to find out his enemy. He that shall read what the Scripture testifies of it self, that is, what God does of it; and what the ancients speak concerning it, and shall himself have any acquaintance with the nature and excellency of it, must needs shrink extremely when he comes to see the Romanists discourse about it; indeed, against it. For my part, I can truly profess, that no one thing does so alienate my mind from the present Roman religion, as this treatment of the word of God. I cannot but think that a sad profession of religion, which enforces men to decry the use and excellency of that, which (let them pretend what they please) is the only infallible revelation of all that truth, by obedience whereunto, we become Christians. I do heartily pity learned and ingenious men, when I see them enforced by a private corrupt interest, to engage in this woful work of undervaluing the word of God; and so much the more, as that I cannot but hope, that it is a very ungrateful work to themselves: did they delight in it, I should have other thoughts of them; and conclude, that there are more atheists in the world, than those whom our author informs us to be lately turned so in England. This then is the remedy that Protestants have for their evils: this the means of making up all their differences; which they might do every day, so far as in this world it is possible that that work should be done among men, if it were not their own fault: that they do not so, blame them still, blame them soundly, lay on reproofs till I cry, Hold: but let not, I pray, the word of God be blamed any more. Methinks I could beg this of a Catholic, especially of my countrymen, that whatever they say to Protestants, or however they deal with them, they would let the Scripture alone, and not decry its worth and usefulness: it is not Protestants' book, it is God's; who has only granted them an use of it, in common with the rest of men: and what is spoken in disparagement of it, does not reflect on them, but on him that made it, and sent it to them. It is no policy, I confess, to discover our secrets to our adversaries, whereby they may prevent their own disadvantages for the future: but yet because I look not on the Romanists as absolute enemies, I shall let them know for once, that when Protestants come to that head of their disputes or orations, wherein they contend that the Scripture is so, and so, obscure and insufficient, they generally take great contentment, to find that their religion cannot be opposed, without casting down the word of God from its excellency, and enthroning somewhat else in the room of it. Let them make what use of this they please, I could not but tell it them for their good, and I know it to be true. For the present it comes too late. For, another main principle of our author's discourse is,

VIII. That the Scripture on sundry accounts is insufficient to settle us in the truth of religion, or to bring us to an agreement among our selves; and that 1. Because it is not to be known to be the word of God, but by the testimony of the Roman Church. And then 2. Cannot be well translated into any vulgar language. And is also 3. In its self obscure. And 4. We have no way to determine of what is its proper sense. Atqui hic est nigrae sumus Caliginis, haec est Aerugo mera. I suppose they will not tell a Pagan or a Mahumetan this story: at least I heartily wish that men would not suffer themselves to be so far transported by their private interest, as to forget the general concernments of Christianity. We cannot, say they, know the Scripture to be the word of God, but by the authority of the Church of Rome: and all men may easily assure themselves, that no man had ever known there was such a thing as a Church; much less that it had any authority, but by the Scripture. And whither this tends, is easie to guess. But it will not enter into my head, that we cannot know or believe the Scripture to be the word of God, any otherwise than on the authority of the Church of Rome: the greatest part of it, was believed to be so, before there was any Church at Rome at all; and all of it is so by millions in the world, who make no account of that Church at all. Now some say, there is such a Church. I wish men would leave perswading us, that we do not believe what we know we do believe; or that we cannot do that, which we know we do, and see that millions besides our selves do so too. There are not many nations in Europe, wherein there are not thousands who are ready to lay down their lives to give testimony, that the Scripture is the word of God, that care not a rush for the authority of the present Church of Rome: and what further evidence they can give that they believe so, I know not. And this they do, upon that innate evidence, that the word of God has in it self, and gives to it self, the testimony of Christ, and his Apostles, and the teaching of the Church of God in all ages. I must needs say, there is not any thing for which Protestants are so much beholding to the Roman Catholicks as this, that they have with so much importunacy cast upon them the work of proving the Scripture to be of divine original, or to have been given by inspiration from God. It is as good a work, as a man can well be imployed in: and there is not any thing I should more gladly en professo ingage in, if the nature of my present business would bear such a diversion. Our Author would quickly see what an easie task it were, to remove those his reproches of a private spirit, of an inward testimony, of our own reason; which himself knowing the advantage they afford him among vulgar unstudied men, trisles withal. Both Romanists, and Protestants, as far as I can learn, do acknowledge, that the grace of the Spirit, is necessary to enable a man to believe savingly, the Scripture to be the word of God, upon what testimony or authority soever that faith is founded, or resolved into. Now this with Protestants is no private whisper, no enthusiasm, no reason of their own, no particular testimony, but the most open, noble, known that is, or can be in the world; even the voice of God himself, speaking publickly to all, in and by the Scripture, evidencing it self by its own divine, innate light, and excellency, taught, confirmed, and testified to, by the Church in all ages; especially the first, founded by Christ and his Apostles. He that looks for better, or other testimony, witness, or foundation to build his faith upon, may search till Dooms-day without success. He that renounceth this, shakes the very root of Christianity, and opens a door to Atheism and Paganism. This was the anchor of Christians of old, from which neither the storms of persecution could drive them, nor the subtilty of disputations entise them. For men to come now in the end of the world, and to tell us, that we must rest in the authority of the present Church of Rome, in our receiving the Scripture to be the word of God; and then to tell us, that that Church has all its authority by, and from, the Scripture; and to know well enough all the while, that no man can know there is any Church, or any Church authority, but by the Scripture, is to speak daggers and swords to us, upon a confidence that we will suffer our selves to be befooled, that we may have the after-pleasure of making others like our selves.

Of the translation of the Scripture into vulgar tongues, I shall expresly treat afterwards, and therefore here passe it over.

3. Its obscurity is another thing insisted on, and highly exaggerated by our Author. And this is another thing that I greatly wonder at: for as wise as these Gentlemen would be thought to be, he that has but half an eye, may discern, that they consider not with whom they have to do in this matter. The Scripture I suppose, they will grant to be given by inspiration from God; if they deny it, we are ready to prove it at any time. I suppose also that they will grant, that the end why God gave it, was, that it might be a Revelation of himself, so far as it was needful for us to know him, and his mind, and will, so that we may serve him. If this were not the end for which God gave his Word to us, I wish they would acquaint us with some other. I think it was not, that it might be put into a Cabinet, and lock'd up in a Chest: if this were the end of it; then God intended in it, to make a revelation of himself, so far as it was necessary we should know of him, and his mind, and will, that we might serve him. For that which is any one end of any thing, or matter, that he intends, which is the Author of it: now if God intended to make such a revelation of himself, his mind, and will, in giving of the Scripture, as was said; he has either done it plainly, that is, without any such obscurity, as should frustrate him of his end, or he has not; and that because either he would not, or he could not. I wish I knew which of these it was, that the Roman Catholics do fix upon; it would spare me the labor of speaking to the other: but seeing I do not; that they may have no evasion, I will consider them both. If they say, it was because he could not make any such plain discovery and revelation of himself, then this is that they say: that God intending to reveal himself, his mind, and will, plainly in the Scripture to the sons of men, was not able to do it, and therefore failed in his design: this works but little to the glory of his omnipotency, and omnisciency. But to let that pass, wherein men (so they may compass their own ends) seem not to be much concerned: I desire to know, whether this plain sufficient revelation of God, be made any other way, or no? If no otherwise, then, as I confess we are all in the dark; so it is to no purpose to blame the Scripture of obscurity, seeing it is as lightsome as any thing else is, or can be. If this revelation be made some other way, it must be by God himself, or some body else: that any other should be supposed in good earnest to do that which God cannot (though I know how some Canonists have jested about the Pope) I think will not be pleaded. If God then has done this another way, I desire to know the true reason why he could not do it this way; namely, by the Scripture, and therefore desisted from his purpose? But it may be thought God could make a revelation of himself, his mind, and will, in and by the Scripture, yet he would not do it plainly, but obscurely: let us then see what we mean by plainly in this business. We intend not, that every text in Scripture is easy to be understood; nor that all the matter of it is easy to be apprehended. We know that there are things in it hard to be understood, things to exercise the minds of the best, and wisest of men to diligence, and when they have done their utmost, to reverence. But this is that we mean by plainly; the whole will and mind of God, with whatever is needful to be known of him, is revealed in the Scripture, without such ambiguity or obscurity, as should hinder the Scripture from being a revelation of him, his mind, and will; to the end, that we may know him, and live to him. To say that God would not do this, would not make such a revelation (besides the reflection that it casts on his goodness and wisdom) is indeed to say, that he would not do that, which we say he would do. The truth is, all the harangues we meet withal about the obscurity of the Scripture, are direct arraignments of the wisdom and goodness of God. And if I were worthy to advise my Roman-Catholic countrymen, I would persuade them to desist from this enterprise; if not in piety, at least in policy: for, I can assure them, as I think I have done already, that all their endeavours for the extenuation of the worth, excellency, fullness, sufficiency of the Scripture, do exceedingly confirm Protestants in the truth of their present persuasion; which they see cannot be touched, but by such horrible applications as they detest.

But yet they say, Scripture is not so clear, but that it needs interpretation; and Protestants have none to interpret it, so as to make it a means of ending differences. I confess, the interpretation of Scripture is a good and necessary work; and I know, that he who was dead, and is alive for ever, continues to give gifts to men, according to his Promise, to enable them to interpret the Scripture, for the edification of his Body the Church. If there were none of these interpreters among the Protestants, I wonder from where it is come to pass, that his comments on, and interpretations of Scripture, who is most hated by Romanists of all the Protestants that ever were in the World, are so borrowed, and used (that I say not stollen) by so many of them: and that indeed what is praise-worthy in any of their Church, in the way of exposition of Scripture, is either borrowed from Protestants, or done in imitation of them. If I am called on for instances in this kind, I shall give them, I am perswaded, to some mens amazement, who are less conversant in these things. But we are besides the matter: it is of an infallible interpreter, in whose expositions and determinations of Scripture-sense, all Christians are obliged to acquiesce, and such an one you have none. I confess we have not, if it be such an one as you intend; whose expositions and interpretations we must acquiesce in: not because they are true, but because they are his. We have infallible expositions of the Scripture in all necessary truths, as we are assured from the Scripture itself: but an infallible expositor, into whose authority our faith should be resolved, besides the Scripture itself, we have none: nor do I think they have any at Rome, whatever they talk of to men that were never there; nor (I suppose) do they believe it themselves: for indeed if they do, I know not how they can be freed, from being thought to be strangely distempered, if not stark mad. For not to talk of the Tower of London, this I am sure of, that we have whole cart loads of comments and expositions on the Scripture, written by members of the Church, men of all orders and degrees; and he that has cast an eye upon them, knows, that a great part of their large volumes, are spent in confuting the expositions of one another, and those that went before them. Now what a madness is this, or childishness, above that of very children, to lye swaggering and contending one with another, before all the World, with fallible mediums about the sense of Scripture, and giving expositions, which no man is bound to acquiesce in, any further than he sees reason; while all this while they have one among them, who can infallibly interpret all; and that with such an authority, as all men are bound to rest in, and contend no further? And the further mischief of it is, that of all the rest, this man is always silent, as to exposition of Scripture, who alone is able to part the fray. There be two things, which I think verily, if I were a Papist, I should never like in the Pope; because methinks they argue a great deal of want of good nature: the one is (that we treat about) that he can see his children so fiercely wrangle about the sense of Scripture, and yet will not give out what is the infallible meaning of every place, at least that is controverted, and so stint the strife among them, seeing it seems he can if he would. And the other is, that he suffers so many souls to lye in Purgatory, when he may let them forth if he please; and (that I know of) has received no order to the contrary. But the truth is, that neither the Romanists, nor we, have any infallible living judge, in whose determination of the sense of Scripture, all men should be bound to acquiesce, upon the account of his authority: this is all the difference: we openly profess we have none such, and betake us to that which we have, which is better for us; they pretending they have, yet acting constantly as if they had not, and as indeed they have not; maintain a perpetual inconsistency, and contradiction between their pretentions, and their practice. The Holy Ghost, speaking in and by the Scripture, using the ministry of men furnished by himself, with gifts and abilities, and lawfully called to the work, for the oral declaration, or other expositions of his mind, is that which the Protestants cleave to, for the interpreting of the Scripture; which itself discovers, when infallible. And if Papists can tell me of a better way, I will quickly imbrace it. I suppose I may, upon the considerations we have had of the reasons offered to prove the insufficiency of Scripture, to settle us in the truth, and to end our differences, conclude their insufficiency to any such purpose. We know, the Scripture was given us, to settle us in the truth, and to end our differences; we know, it is profitable to that end and purpose, and able to make us wise to salvation. If we find not these effects wrought in ourselves, it is our own fault; and I desire that for hereafter, we may bear our own blame, without such reflections on the holy Word of the Infinitely Blessed God.

IX. We are come at length to the Pope, of whom we are told, that he is a good man, one that seeks nothing but our good, that never did us harm, but has the care, and inspection of us committed to him by Christ. For my part, I am glad to hear such news of him, and should be more glad to find it to be true. Our forefathers and predecessors in the faith we profess, found it otherwise. All the harm that could be done to them, by ruining their families, destroying their estates, imprisoning, and torturing their persons, and lastly, burning their bodies in fire, they received at his hands. If the alteration pretended, be not from the shortening of his power, but the change of his mind and will, I shall be very glad to hear of it. For the present, I confess, I had rather take it for granted, while he is at this distance, than see him trusted with power, for the trial of his will. I never heard of much of his repentance, for the blood of those thousands that has been shed by his authority, and in his cause; which makes me suspect, he may be somewhat of the same mind still, as he was. Time was, when the very worst of Popes exhausted more treasure out of this nation, to spend it abroad to their own ends, than some are willing to grant to the best of kings, to spend at home for their goods. It may be, he is changed, as to this design also, but I do not know it; nor is any proof offered of it, by our author. Let us deal plainly one with another, and (without telling us, that the Pope never did us harm, which is not the way to make us believe, that he will not; because it makes us suspect, that all we have suffered from him, is thought no harm) let him tell us how he will assure us, that if this good Pope get us into his power again, he will not burn us, as he did our forefathers, unless we submit our consciences to him in all things; that he will not find out ways to draw the treasure out of the nation, nor absolve subjects from their allegiance, nor excommunicate, or attempt the deposition of our kings, or the giving away of their kingdoms, as he has done in former days? That these things he has done, we know; that he has repented of them, and changed his mind thereupon, we know not. To have any thing to do with him, while he continues in such distempers is not only against the principles of religion, but of common prudence also. For my part, I cannot but fear, until I see security tendered of this change in the Pope, that all the good words that are given us concerning him, are but baits to ensnare us into his power; and to tell you the truth, terrent vestigia. How the Pope employs himself in seeking our good, which our author paints out to us, I know not; when I see the effects of it, I shall be thankful for it. In the mean time, being so great a stranger to Rome, as I am, I must needs say, I know nothing that he does, but seek to destroy us, body and soul. Our author pleads indeed, that the care and inspection of our condition, is committed to him by Christ: but he attempts not to prove it, which I somewhat marvel at: for having professedly deserted the old way of pleading the Catholic cause and interest, (which I presume he did, upon conviction of its insufficiency) whereas he is an ingenious person he could not but know, that Pasce oves meas, Tu es Petrus, Tibi dabo claves, are as weak parts of the old plea, as any made use of; belonging nothing at all to the thing, whereunto they are applied; it is somewhat strange, that he would substitute no new proofs in their room. But, it seems, it is not every one's hap, with him of old, to want opinions sometimes, but no arguments. When he has got proofs to his purpose, we will again attend to him: in the mean time, in this case shall only mind him, that the taking for granted in disputations, that which should principally be proved, has got an ill name among learned men, being commonly called begging.

X. The last principle which I have observed, diffusing its influences throughout the whole discourse, is, that the devotion of Catholics, far transcends that of Protestants: their preaching also (which I forgot to mention before) is far to be preferred above that of these: and for their religion and worship, it is liable to no just exception. I desire that our author would but a little call to mind that parable of our Savior, about the two men that went up into the temple to pray. To me this discourse smells rank of the Pharisee, and I wish that we might all rather strive to grow in faith, love, charity, self-denial, and universal conformity to our Lord Jesus; than to bristle up, and cry, Stand further off, for I am holier than you. In the mean time, for the respect I bear him, I entreat our author to speak no more of this matter, lest some angry Protestant, or some fanatic should take occasion to talk of old matters, and rip up old sores, or give an account of the present state of things in the Church of Rome; all which were a great deal better covered. If he will not take my advice, he must thank himself for that, which will assuredly follow. I must also say, by the way, that that devotion, which consists so much, as our author makes it to do, in the sweeping of churches, and tinkling of bells; in counting of beads, and knocking of breasts, is of very little value with Protestants, who have obtained an experience of the excellency of spiritual communion with God in Christ Jesus. Now whether these parts of the profession and practice of his church, which he is pleased to undertake, not only the vindication, but the adorning of, be liable to just exception or no, is the last part of our work to consider; and which shall in its proper place be done accordingly.

As I before observed, He that shall but cursorily run through this Discourse, will quickly find, that these false suppositions, ungrounded presumptions, and unwarrantable pretensions, are the things which are disposed of, to be the foundations, nerves, and sinews of all the rhetoric that it is covered and wrought withal; and that the bare drawing of them out, leaves all the remaining flourishes in a more scattered condition, than the Sybils leaves; which no man can gather up, and put together, to make up any significancy at all, as to the design in hand. I might then well spare all further labor, and here put a period to my progress; and indeed would do so; were I secure I had none to deal with, but ingenious, and judicious readers; that have some to tolerable acquaintance at least, with the estate of religion of old, and at present in Europe, and with the concernment of their own souls in these things. But that no pretence may be left to any, that we avoided any thing material in our Author: Having passed through his discourse to the end of it, I shall once more return to the beginning, and pass through its severals, leaving behind in the way, such animadversions as are any way needful to rescue such as have not a mind to be deceived, from the snares and cobwebs of his oratory.